Recently, doubts were raised about the existence of the bilingual advantage in cognitive control. The aim of the present review was to investigate the bilingual advantage and its modulating factors. We searched the Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and ERIC databases for all original data and reviewed studies on bilingualism and cognitive control, with a cut-off date of 31 October 2018, thereby following the guidelines of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocol. The results of the 46 original studies show that indeed, the majority, 54.3%, reported beneficial effects of bilingualism on cognitive control tasks; however, 28.3% found mixed results and 17.4% found evidence against its existence. Methodological differences seem to explain these mixed results: Particularly, the varying selection of the bilingual participants, the use of nonstandardized tests, and the fact that individual differences were often neglected and that longitudinal designs were rare. Therefore, a serious risk for bias exists in both directions (i.e., in favor of and against the bilingual advantage). To conclude, we found some evidence for a bilingual advantage in cognitive control; however, if significant progress is to be made, better study designs, bigger data, and more longitudinal studies are needed.

Cancer pain is the most common complaint among patients with cancer. Conventional treatment does not always relieve cancer pain satisfactorily. Therefore, many patients with cancer have turned to complementary therapies to help them with their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being. Massage therapy is increasingly used for symptom relief in patients with cancer. The current study aimed to investigate by meta-analysis the effects of massage therapy for cancer patients experiencing pain. Nine electronic databases were systematically searched for studies published through August 2013 in English, Chinese, and Korean. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Cochrane risk-of-bias scales. Twelve studies, including 559 participants, were used in the meta-analysis. In 9 highquality studies based on the PEDro scale (standardized mean difference, −1.24; 95% confidence interval, −1.72 to −0.75), we observed reduction in cancer pain after massage. Massage therapy significantly reduced cancer pain compared with no massage treatment or conventional care (standardized mean difference, −1.25; 95% confidence interval, −1.63 to −0.87). Our results indicate that massage is effective for the relief of cancer pain, especially for surgery-related pain. Among the various types of massage, foot reflexology appeared to be more effective than body or aroma massage. Our meta-analysis indicated a beneficial effect of massage for relief of cancer pain. Further well-designed, large studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to be able to draw firmer conclusions regarding the effectiveness.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

ObjectivesNeck pain is a significant condition that is second only to depression as a cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Thus, identifying and understanding effective treatment modalities for neck pain is of heightened importance. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effects of cupping on neck pain from the current literature.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).SettingNine databases, including Chinese, Korean and Japanese databases, were searched for data up to January 2018 with no restrictions on publication language.ParticipantsPatients with neck pain.InterventionsCupping therapy as the sole or add-on intervention compared with no treatment or active controls.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPain severity, functional disability and quality of life.ResultsEighteen RCTs were selected. Compared with the no intervention group, the cupping group exhibited significant reduction in pain (mean difference (MD) −2.42(95% CI −3.98 to −0.86)) and improvement in function (MD −4.34(95% CI −6.77 to −1.19)). Compared with the active control, the cupping group reported significant reduction in pain (p=0.0009) and significantly improved quality of life (p=0.001). The group that received control treatment with cupping therapy (add-on group) displayed significant pain reduction compared with the active control group (p=0.001). Of the 18 studies, only 8 reported occurrence of adverse events, which were mostly mild and temporary.ConclusionsCupping was found to reduce neck pain in patients compared with no intervention or active control groups, or as an add-on treatment. Depending on the type of control group, cupping was also associated with significant improvement in terms of function and quality of life; however, due to the low quality of evidence of the included studies, definitive conclusions could not be drawn from this review. Future well-designed studies are needed to substantiate the effectiveness of cupping on neck pain.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016047218.